I think the reality of what you are doing is more like what Upton Sinclair noticed about trying to get people to understand something.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
When people don't want to understand, they won't. They just won't.
I’ve shown your own words to you. I don’t know how I can explain it more simply. If you don’t grasp the meaning of your own, I give up. I can’t do your writing for you. You will have to do some better writing on your own.
I have asked where exactly this 40% greater profits would come from, and exactly where those profits would go. Presumably you're referring to tariffs. The tariffs the South could have prevented, but chose secession instead. Yet the CSA had their own tariffs, so there couldn't have been 40% additional profits based on that.
Then you'll argue that the tariffs of the CSA benefited the South, while the tariffs of 1857 only benefited the North. But there's no evidence of that. The federal government paid for mail service across the South, all military and Revenue Service facilities, even the dredging of Charleston harbor. You just repeat the same worn out mantra.
Then you'll say the South would no longer have to pay Northern shipping interests. Then admit they'd pay British shipping interests instead. So where would the profits come from?
You don't make a lot of sense.
I've seen you claim 35% greater profits and 40% greater profits. Can't keep your stories straight, huh?
But be that as it may, both claims are completely bogus. Assuming you're referring to the claim of another poster that New York realized 40% on the dollar for every dollar of cotton export, the only way Southern profits would go up 40% would be if insurance and transportation and banking and brokering costs went to zero. Highly unlikely. Ban the north from the business and give it to Europe and your costs may have remained about 40% or gone down by some unknown percentage or could even have gone up. We don't know.